Do you haft to be baptized?

[Jethro Bodine]

Re: Do you have to be baptized?

You can't be a christian without being baptised. Why? Because you haven't PUT ON Christ:

Ga 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

If you haven't been baptized, you haven't put on Christ, and are therefore not a Christian.

You are not rightly dividing the Word of God. The Bible itself speaks of people who didn't receive the Spirit at their water baptism. We have to consider the whole counsel of God when formulating doctrine. You have not done that.

And excusing those examples by adding an interpretation as to what they mean is just plain wrong to do. You're entitled to an opinion about why God sometimes did or didn't give his Spirit in conjunction with water baptism in the Bible, but to say 'the Bible says so' when it doesn't is adding to scripture.

 

[stovebolts]

Re: Do you have to be baptized?

So? Read again, more closely: It says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth, not, shall be damned."

But it does NOT say, "He that is baptisedeth, not, shall be damned."

Translation:
He who doesn't believe is damned (rather than be shown and saved, he is simply damned and thrown away - that makes sense!).
But where does it say, "He who isn't baptised will be damned!!" ?

I don't know why you're trying to make it that complicated. The text says "He who believes AND is baptized shall be saved." It doesn't say, "He that believes shall be saved.

Here's the deal. Even the daemons believe and we know where their eternal destination is.. So we know that it's more than just belief. It's believing enough to actually DO what Jesus wants us to do. What did Jesus say? "If you love me, keep my commandments." It's not I that commanded baptism, it was Jesus.

Well they call themselves Christians. Maybe JC will be the one to decide if they are or are not Christians.

Applying something (such as baptism) which was done on the day 2000 years ago as a ceremony is superfluous today when someone gets down and begs for forgiveness and guidance and acceptance or hands his life over.

What if someone is out of reach of the baptist when he decides to repent?

Are you saying everyone who died before the advent of baptism went to hell?

First off, the word Christian is a name that the secular world used to called those who follow Christ. In other words, Jesus doesn't call us Christians or Non-Christians. No, he calls us Brother, and not only that, God calls us his children.

What is clear, is that those who believed and were baptized were known as Christians and the Bible clearly supports that claim. So again, I'm not interested in your what if arguments. What I am interested in is what the Bible says.

 

[stovebolts]

Jesus told those He was addressing directly: His disciples. And they did as He commanded. Baptism has it's roots deep in the Old Testament purification laws. Jesus and His disciples were still all under the Law of Moses. Gentiles were not and have never been.

To suggest that baptism can add one bit to the work Christ did on the cross is anathema to the gospel.

{8} For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; {9} not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 (NASB)

If dunking in water cleanses one from sin, there was no reason for Christ to die!

Let me start of by saying that nobody was or will be saved by being dunked in a tank of water, and if that's how you are viewing baptism, then your following the views of men, and not the word of God.

As far as Eph 2:8-9, you should keep reading. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Nothing wrong with good works which God has prepared for us... But also, if we go to Acts 20, Paul is also talking about the church in Ephesus. Acts 20:21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

So we see that repentance holds much value to Paul and his message. And if you understand baptism, you'll also notice that our baptism is a baptism for repentance, which requires a clean conscience. Not only that, but the ministry of Jesus was a ministry of repentance...

To sum this up, are we not also disciples of Christ? Didn't Jesus command his disciples to go out, preach the good news, baptize those who believe the message and in turn make them disciples of Christ as well?

And BTW, the advent of Jesus has it's roots in the OT... and Paul even states that ALL scriptures are God breathed, profitable for... and I think you should know the rest. Ironically, Paul was addressing what we now know as the "Old Testament".... But your right, Gentiles were NEVER under the law, and this discussion took place among the Apostles in Acts 15.

 

[Stormcrow]

Stovebolts:

The example of Cornelius is quite clear: he not only received salvation but also the Holy Spirit before one drop of water touched him.

Therefore, to suggest that water baptism is required for salvation is simply not true. If people want to be baptized as a sign of an inward transformation, I don't have a problem with that. The problem is in suggesting that water baptism is required for salvation. If that's true, an awful lot of people who turn to Christ just before they die - like the thief on the cross - are not going to heaven.

On the other hand it would seem that an awful lot of people who have been baptized in water may very well end up in hell despite their baptism.

 

[Stormcrow]

{14} I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; {15} Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. {16} And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. {17} For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 (KJV)

If water baptism must accompany the preaching and teaching of the gospel of Christ, why did Paul refuse to baptize but a very few of the disciples he led to Christ?

He was not just a disciple but an apostle, and yet refused to do the very thing Christ commanded those who would become His other apostles to do!

Why? Could it be because the saving power of the gospel of Christ does not exist in water but in blood???

 

[Asyncritus]

{14} I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; {15} Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. {16} And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. {17} For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 (KJV)

If water baptism must accompany the preaching and teaching of the gospel of Christ, why did Paul refuse to baptize but a very few of the disciples he led to Christ?

He was not just a disciple but an apostle, and yet refused to do the very thing Christ commanded those who would become His other apostles to do!

Why? Could it be because the saving power of the gospel of Christ does not exist in water but in blood???

SC

On the headcoverings thread, you have made it absolutely clear that it is your opinion that Paul was not writing scripture.

That right?

If he wasn't, then why are you quoting him here?

Also you said:

The example of Cornelius is quite clear: he not only received salvation but also the Holy Spirit before one drop of water touched him.

That was written by Luke, who wasn't even an apostle.

So why is his writing important, or even truthful? He may well have been mistaken, in which case your argument is meaningless.

It was anyway, but this is merely proof.

How say you?

 

[Stormcrow]

SC

On the headcoverings thread, you have made it absolutely clear that it is your opinion that Paul was not writing scripture.

Trying to get this thread locked, too?

And - for the record - Paul wasn't writing "scripture." Show me any verse in the NT where Christ or the apostles referred to the New Testament as "scripture."

Get back to me when you find one. Just one.

That was written by Luke, who wasn't even an apostle.

So why is his writing important, or even truthful?

Your repeated appeals to arguments of absurdity are...well...absurd.

Get back to me when you know what the New Testament refers to as "scripture."

 

[jasoncran]

play nice.

luke who also wrote acts.luke who also gave most of the account of the birth.

that luke?

and sc has a point, the letters are to the churches though now a scripture and inspired but written for the most part to the local churches dealing with local problems.

it would help if the gentiles actually understood rabbinical things. paul did what the sages do and rabbis.

 

[Webb]

Paul did what men inspired of God do.

 

[jasoncran]

Paul did what men inspired of God do.

no one is denying that but once again, he didnt do things from the air.

he went to the source of the whole story. like the sages and jesus he refered to the revealed books earlier to them when needed and then if needed expounded on that, but i have question for you all

why is there no new names for God?

but if you hold Pauline statements on that level then why is that christians cant have slaves?

theres no commandment today that christians cant have one today.hmm

this is why one is too look at then and take in the principal of what was going on then and then see why they did that and extract the principal.

otherwise its like some creationist do when they try to say genesis is against evolution and use it that way, while that book is to be literal that simply was never its intent.

 

[Webb]

The very tenor of all NT writings lead to the conclusion of non-slavery does it not? But such is off topic, this topic is "DO YOU HAFT TO BE BAPTIZED?"

 

[jasoncran]

The very tenor of all NT writings lead to the conclusion of non-slavery does it not? But such is off topic, this topic is "DO YOU HAFT TO BE BAPTIZED?"

not for salvation. as a command i suggest obeying it.

but if that is the case paul who wrote the word, 2 souls came yet that is odd. peter who wrote less led more souls to christ.

so either we take years or months to disciple them to the lord and carry water with us to baptise them.

i mean if i have a coworker who asks me to led him to the lord, do then i have him go to the beach?or pray then and there.

of what if that nearest body of water is hours away?

 

[sburdine]

{14} I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; {15} Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. {16} And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. {17} For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 (KJV)

If water baptism must accompany the preaching and teaching of the gospel of Christ, why did Paul refuse to baptize but a very few of the disciples he led to Christ?

He was not just a disciple but an apostle, and yet refused to do the very thing Christ commanded those who would become His other apostles to do!

Why? Could it be because the saving power of the gospel of Christ does not exist in water but in blood???

It tells us in verse 15 why he did not baptize anymore, because he did not want it thought that he baptized in his own name instead of the name of Christ.

Does baptism need to be a part of the gospel of Christ? Well, when we look at Acts 8 I think we get the answer. Notice verses 35-39:

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.
36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"
37 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

From this passage we learn that Philip, who was inspired and was told to preach to the eunuch included baptism when he taught the eunuch the gospel of Christ.

Lastly, you asked "Why? Could it be because the saving power of the gospel of Christ does not exist in water but in blood???"

I do not know of anyone who teaches or believes that the saving power of the gospel of Christ exists in the water. Baptism is not what saves a man, but it is when the man receives the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Webb]

Good post --The scripture reads in Acts 8 that Philip "opened his mouth, and began at the same scriptiure and preached unto him Jesus. And as theuy went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, Dee, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized" Vs.35,36. Phillip preached Jesus! No mention that he said anything about baptism, YET, he had to else the eunuch would not have asked to be baptized. This clearly teaches you can't preach Jesus in fulness without preaching baptism, see Mark 16:15-16.

 

[Webb]

Hi Asyncritus.

You've been challenged to show where the NT is scripture. I know you know the answer as do I but I have said I would no longer reply to comments made by one poster.

 

[jasoncran]

Good post --The scripture reads in Acts 8 that Philip "opened his mouth, and began at the same scriptiure and preached unto him Jesus. And as theuy went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, Dee, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized" Vs.35,36. Phillip preached Jesus! No mention that he said anything about baptism, YET, he had to else the eunuch would not have asked to be baptized. This clearly teaches you can't preach Jesus in fulness without preaching baptism, see Mark 16:15-16.

funny this site doesnt embrace that all, why we must be alll apostates!

and if one such as i listed above dies before he gets baptised then he never was saved

funny paul wrote romans says otherwise
romans 10

8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

nothing is mentioned here about baptism.

odd, paul is one confused man then doesnt know his own doctrine.

 

[Stormcrow]

I do not know of anyone who teaches or believes that the saving power of the gospel of Christ exists in the water.

There are those in this very forum that believe this to be the case:

No water baptism for the remission of sins = no salvation, no remission of sins which results in missing heaven.

Being baptized is entrance into the Church, the Body of Christ.

water baptism and is for "remission of sins", "to be saved", to become "a new creature", to be in the "one body", to have sins "washed away'', and to be "in Christ" and to "put on Christ. That water baptism is a COMMAND to be obeyed by all accountable people to the end of the world.

If water baptism saves, Christ didn't have to die, because water baptism preceded Christ's death. If it could've saved anyone, Christ died in vain.

 

[Stormcrow]

Hi Asyncritus.

You've been challenged to show where the NT is scripture. I know you know the answer as do I but I have said I would no longer reply to comments made by one poster.

You do know it's against the TOS to post that you are ignoring other members, don't you?

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: Do you have to be baptized?

Sorry Jethro, I've missed replying to this.

You are not rightly dividing the Word of God. The Bible itself speaks of people who didn't receive the Spirit at their water baptism. We have to consider the whole counsel of God when formulating doctrine. You have not done that.

And excusing those examples by adding an interpretation as to what they mean is just plain wrong to do. You're entitled to an opinion about why God sometimes did or didn't give his Spirit in conjunction with water baptism in the Bible, but to say 'the Bible says so' when it doesn't is adding to scripture.

You are not rightly dividing the Word of God. The Bible itself speaks of people who didn't receive the Spirit at their water baptism. We have to consider the whole counsel of God when formulating doctrine. You have not done that.

I have done. You are ignoring the facts, so let's do a survey now.

1. None of John's disciples who were baptised received the spirit till long afterwards.

2. Jesus was baptized and THEN received the spirit.

3. Jesus (or His disciples) baptised, and we are not told that those who were baptised received the spirit.

4. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptised, but did not receive the spirit.

5. The samaritans were baptised and did not receive the spirit.

6. The people in Acts 2 were baptised - thousands of them - and did not receive the spirit (at least, we are not told they did).

7. Lydia and her household were baptised, and did not receive the spirit.

8. The Philippian jailor and his household were baptised and did not receive the spirit.

9. A whole church was set up at Ephesus, and we aren't told that they received the spirit.

In fact there are a lot more people who we know were baptised and as far as we know, did not receive the spirit.

The ONLY ONE who received the spirit first and was then baptised, is Cornelius. And we know exactly why that happened.

So it is just plain wilfulness to say that receiving the spirit before baptism is the rule. Plain wrong.

And excusing those examples by adding an interpretation as to what they mean is just plain wrong to do. You're entitled to an opinion about why God sometimes did or didn't give his Spirit in conjunction with water baptism in the Bible, but to say 'the Bible says so' when it doesn't is adding to scripture.

You are misrepresenting the facts.

There is only ONE example where this happens, and thousands of examples where it didn't, or we are not told about it

So your last line condemns you out of your own mouth. YOU are saying the Bible says so, when it clearly doesn't.

Conclusion: You MUST BE water-baptised, and you may or may not receive the spirit.

 

[Asyncritus]

funny this site doesnt embrace that all, why we must be alll apostates!

and if one such as i listed above dies before he gets baptised then he never was saved

funny paul wrote romans says otherwise
romans 10


nothing is mentioned here about baptism.

odd, paul is one confused man then doesnt know his own doctrine.

Come Jason, you've got more sense than that.

Romans was written to PEOPLE WHO HAD ALREADY BEEN BAPTISED. Go read chapter 6 if you don't believe me.